Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SACC-L] Fwd: Gusterson/Feaver debate, For. Policy, Aug 08

Expand Messages
  • anthropmor@AOL.COM
    Thanks! Mike Pavlik **************Looking for a car that s sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 12, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks!
      Mike Pavlik



      **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
      Read reviews on AOL Autos.
      (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Lloyd Miller
      Hey George, The exchanges between Gusterson and Feaver on Pentagon funding are interesting. I noticed that the American Psychological Ass n is also voting on
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 19, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey George,

        The exchanges between Gusterson and Feaver on Pentagon funding are
        interesting. I noticed that the American Psychological Ass'n is also
        voting on a resolution that its members should refuse to work in
        interrogation settings where torture is present (e.g., Guantanamo,
        etc.).

        I think that Gusterson's point that the source of funding inevitably
        influences the study irrespective of intentions is persuasive. I
        wonder if Gates would actually consider his suggestion of placing the
        money with NSF instead. It would be interesting to hear his reasons
        for not doing so. On the other hand, Feaver does make a point that
        many scholars would simply follow the money (it's their livelihood,
        they must put their kids through college, etc.), thus the Pentagon's
        Minerva project would be successful and the so-called leftist
        anthropologist dissenters would be seen as largely irrelevant.

        In the final analysis, though, I side with the irrelevant ones.

        Lloyd

        On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:01 AM, George Thomas wrote:

        > www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4398.php



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Kip Waldo
        So it is just the source of the funding, not the purpose of the study? Operation Phoenix, centered at MSU, was a problem of misreading the situation? The
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 20, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          So it is just the source of the funding, not the purpose of the study? Operation Phoenix, centered at MSU, was a problem of "misreading" the situation? The U.S. is doing what in Iraq and Afghanistan?

          We have learned nothing from the past? I guess if following the money is the guide I don't have much to say to my students who could make much more than I do by slinging crack on the corner or cooking up some meth in the kitchen.

          kip

          >>> Lloyd Miller <lloyd.miller@...> 08/19/08 11:09 PM >>>
          Hey George,

          The exchanges between Gusterson and Feaver on Pentagon funding are
          interesting. I noticed that the American Psychological Ass'n is also
          voting on a resolution that its members should refuse to work in
          interrogation settings where torture is present (e.g., Guantanamo,
          etc.).

          I think that Gusterson's point that the source of funding inevitably
          influences the study irrespective of intentions is persuasive. I
          wonder if Gates would actually consider his suggestion of placing the
          money with NSF instead. It would be interesting to hear his reasons
          for not doing so. On the other hand, Feaver does make a point that
          many scholars would simply follow the money (it's their livelihood,
          they must put their kids through college, etc.), thus the Pentagon's
          Minerva project would be successful and the so-called leftist
          anthropologist dissenters would be seen as largely irrelevant.

          In the final analysis, though, I side with the irrelevant ones.

          Lloyd

          On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:01 AM, George Thomas wrote:

          > www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4398.php



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • George Thomas
          Clearly the source-of-funding aspect has taken on massive influence, while the research design, intentions, scope of the study take a back seat. Any narrow
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 21, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Clearly the source-of-funding aspect has taken on massive influence, while the research design, intentions, scope of the study take a back seat. Any narrow research focus should now come as spin-off perks from massive Defense contract work.
            I thought Gusterson's approach represented some sort of breakthrough, but only because SecDef Gates has proven to be a cabinet officer capable of paying attention. As far as "human terrain," shadowy funding via the CIA, and integrity of informed consent/trust, there seems to be some sort of growing awareness that these are issues at least as important as sending the marines wherever there's some crisis. It's crucial to remember that the political reaction has become institutionalized: one always questions source of funding regardless of the research intentions. Old 1963 mistakes (and Pres. Kennedy killed Project Camelot) served as one stimulus, assuring that anthro research would be suspect.
            And hey, the meth lab option is out there. I haven't heard about that kind of loot becoming available through some government contract.... (Some suppressed info from Halliburton and KBR notwithstanding..... we're talking about us LITTLE peeps). It's just that other sources of funding have been far more exclusive and harder to get.
            And as the "purist" argument becomes more irrelevant (cheers, Lloyd), we also move away from that most anthropological of areas: culture & personality and its descendants. If we forget about the irrationality within movements and the variations in motivation, we'll ignore that knee-jerk assumption that our funding source necessarily means disaster for the subjects of anthro study.
            And keep an eye out for American Psych Ass'n pronoucements. They are also the source of that ban on "polygraph" evidence in court. As anthros inch closer to irrelevant political side-issues, we might do well to remember that the magic "lie detector" is but an interrogation tool.
            G


            SACC-L@yahoogroups.com wrote:
            Date: 21 Aug 2008 11:08:53 -0000
            From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
            To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [SACC-L] Digest Number 1642

            There is 1 message in this issue.

            Topics in this digest:

            1a. Re: Fwd: Gusterson/Feaver debate, For. Policy, Aug 08
            From: Kip Waldo


            Message
            ________________________________________________________________________
            1a. Re: Fwd: Gusterson/Feaver debate, For. Policy, Aug 08
            Posted by: "Kip Waldo" kwaldo@... kipandfei
            Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:04 am ((PDT))

            So it is just the source of the funding, not the purpose of the study? Operation Phoenix, centered at MSU, was a problem of "misreading" the situation? The U.S. is doing what in Iraq and Afghanistan?

            We have learned nothing from the past? I guess if following the money is the guide I don't have much to say to my students who could make much more than I do by slinging crack on the corner or cooking up some meth in the kitchen.

            kip

            >>> Lloyd Miller 08/19/08 11:09 PM >>>
            Hey George,

            The exchanges between Gusterson and Feaver on Pentagon funding are
            interesting. I noticed that the American Psychological Ass'n is also
            voting on a resolution that its members should refuse to work in
            interrogation settings where torture is present (e.g., Guantanamo,
            etc.).

            I think that Gusterson's point that the source of funding inevitably
            influences the study irrespective of intentions is persuasive. I
            wonder if Gates would actually consider his suggestion of placing the
            money with NSF instead. It would be interesting to hear his reasons
            for not doing so. On the other hand, Feaver does make a point that
            many scholars would simply follow the money (it's their livelihood,
            they must put their kids through college, etc.), thus the Pentagon's
            Minerva project would be successful and the so-called leftist
            anthropologist dissenters would be seen as largely irrelevant.

            In the final analysis, though, I side with the irrelevant ones.

            Lloyd

            On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:01 AM, George Thomas wrote:

            > www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4398.php



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            Messages in this topic (4)



            Find out more at our web page :http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/sacc/

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Yahoo! Groups Links



            ------------------------------------------------------------------------





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • bdlqvcc
            As one who has actively questioned anthropologists engagement in research (applied or otherwise) for efforts such as the so- called Human Terrain Project, I
            Message 5 of 6 , Aug 21, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              As one who has actively questioned anthropologists' engagement
              in "research" (applied or otherwise) for efforts such as the so-
              called Human Terrain Project, I think it amazing how we can
              rationalize such engagement when the powers that be dangle funds in
              front of us. And how this then shapes any subsequent discourse, as
              if "purists" are the ones to be called into question. A recent death
              of a "social scientist" in the Human Terrain program was reported not
              long ago and became another facet of the "humanitarian contribution
              of social scientists" discourse, that continues to cloud the issues
              involved in this whole matter.

              Recently it was also reported that the supposedly "spectacular"
              rescue of hostages in Colombia, and a proposed "false flag" shoot
              down of a plane over Iran, each used or proposed the use of the
              identity of ostensibly neutral NGO's (the Red Cross and the UN) to
              carry out covert operations. These are clearly offenses (legal or
              otherwise) against the very nature of these organziations, and most
              people will see the potential for damage such actions could have
              toward the integrity of such organizations. Anthropologists as
              professionals, who present themselves as 'researchers,' looking for
              the trust and openness of those with whom they study, as the bedrock
              of their profession, can't affort to be any less circumspect than
              such NGO's about the integrity of what we do. And "following the
              money" abolutely has to be part of this.



              --- In SACC-L@yahoogroups.com, George Thomas <broruprecht@...> wrote:
              >
              > Clearly the source-of-funding aspect has taken on massive
              influence, while the research design, intentions, scope of the study
              take a back seat. Any narrow research focus should now come as spin-
              off perks from massive Defense contract work.
              > I thought Gusterson's approach represented some sort of
              breakthrough, but only because SecDef Gates has proven to be a
              cabinet officer capable of paying attention. As far as "human
              terrain," shadowy funding via the CIA, and integrity of informed
              consent/trust, there seems to be some sort of growing awareness that
              these are issues at least as important as sending the marines
              wherever there's some crisis. It's crucial to remember that the
              political reaction has become institutionalized: one always questions
              source of funding regardless of the research intentions. Old 1963
              mistakes (and Pres. Kennedy killed Project Camelot) served as one
              stimulus, assuring that anthro research would be suspect.
              > And hey, the meth lab option is out there. I haven't heard about
              that kind of loot becoming available through some government
              contract.... (Some suppressed info from Halliburton and KBR
              notwithstanding..... we're talking about us LITTLE peeps). It's just
              that other sources of funding have been far more exclusive and harder
              to get.
              > And as the "purist" argument becomes more irrelevant (cheers,
              Lloyd), we also move away from that most anthropological of areas:
              culture & personality and its descendants. If we forget about the
              irrationality within movements and the variations in motivation,
              we'll ignore that knee-jerk assumption that our funding source
              necessarily means disaster for the subjects of anthro study.
              > And keep an eye out for American Psych Ass'n pronoucements. They
              are also the source of that ban on "polygraph" evidence in court. As
              anthros inch closer to irrelevant political side-issues, we might do
              well to remember that the magic "lie detector" is but an
              interrogation tool.
              > G
              >
              >
              > SACC-L@yahoogroups.com wrote:
              > Date: 21 Aug 2008 11:08:53 -0000
              > From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
              > To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [SACC-L] Digest Number 1642
              >
              > There is 1 message in this issue.
              >
              > Topics in this digest:
              >
              > 1a. Re: Fwd: Gusterson/Feaver debate, For. Policy, Aug 08
              > From: Kip Waldo
              >
              >
              > Message
              >
              ______________________________________________________________________
              __
              > 1a. Re: Fwd: Gusterson/Feaver debate, For. Policy, Aug 08
              > Posted by: "Kip Waldo" kwaldo@... kipandfei
              > Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:04 am ((PDT))
              >
              > So it is just the source of the funding, not the purpose of the
              study? Operation Phoenix, centered at MSU, was a problem
              of "misreading" the situation? The U.S. is doing what in Iraq and
              Afghanistan?
              >
              > We have learned nothing from the past? I guess if following the
              money is the guide I don't have much to say to my students who could
              make much more than I do by slinging crack on the corner or cooking
              up some meth in the kitchen.
              >
              > kip
              >
              > >>> Lloyd Miller 08/19/08 11:09 PM >>>
              > Hey George,
              >
              > The exchanges between Gusterson and Feaver on Pentagon funding are
              > interesting. I noticed that the American Psychological Ass'n is
              also
              > voting on a resolution that its members should refuse to work in
              > interrogation settings where torture is present (e.g., Guantanamo,
              > etc.).
              >
              > I think that Gusterson's point that the source of funding
              inevitably
              > influences the study irrespective of intentions is persuasive. I
              > wonder if Gates would actually consider his suggestion of placing
              the
              > money with NSF instead. It would be interesting to hear his reasons
              > for not doing so. On the other hand, Feaver does make a point that
              > many scholars would simply follow the money (it's their livelihood,
              > they must put their kids through college, etc.), thus the
              Pentagon's
              > Minerva project would be successful and the so-called leftist
              > anthropologist dissenters would be seen as largely irrelevant.
              >
              > In the final analysis, though, I side with the irrelevant ones.
              >
              > Lloyd
              >
              > On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:01 AM, George Thomas wrote:
              >
              > > www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4398.php
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Messages in this topic (4)
              >
              >
              >
              > Find out more at our web page :http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/sacc/
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------------------------
              ----
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------------------------
              ----
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.